• 2Password2Remember [he/him]
    ·
    5 hours ago

    what's the difference between "de-privatize" and "nationalize"? is this some weasel word bullshit or did something substantial actually happen here?

    Death to America

    • Formerlyfarman [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      39 minutes ago

      They were never private. They are run by their respective trade unions, wich in practice work more like medieval guilds, were positions in the company can be inherited, sold, etc.

      Sometimes the companies subcontract stuff, and those are awarded to the families of other guild members.

      There are also a lot of benefits for high ranking members like I limited free electricity for life. On the other hand if I exceed my allowed use I get fined into space.

      There were some reforms made by the libs to make the companies more competitive, by bringing some accountability, but they were mostly half assed. And never did anything. Except annoy the most reactionary sectors in Mexican society, who all support amlo.

      This reform doesn't do anything except give them a guarantee that things will stay as they are. Rigthnow Mexico has oil for 15 years or so. And the government invests more money in pemex than it gets out, so it basically is subsidizing the high living standards of high ranking guildsmen.

      Death to america, of course

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Also remember that "privatization" was coined to describe what the Euro fascists did in their economy. Do deprivatize is essentially antifa

    • someone [comrade/them, they/them]
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The more that I think about it, the more I like the term "de-privatize". It explicitly lays out that it's a return to what should have been the normal state of affairs.